Questions 1 and 3 are direct quotes from Marx and 2 are inferred from Marx’s writings on religion.
1. What is the proletariat?
“The proletariat is that class in society which lives entirely from the sale of its labour power and does not draw profit from any kind of capital; whose weal and woe, whose life and death, whose sole existence depends on the demand for labour...
2. What was Marx's view on God?
‘God’ is the way in which the dominant ideology, in any given society, are made to seem objective, sanctified and unchanging.
3. What was Marx's view on religion and "freedom of worship"?
“To abolish religion as the illusory happiness of the people is to demand their real happiness. The demand to give up illusions about the existing state of affairs is the demand to give up a state of affairs which needs illusions. The criticism of religion is therefore in embryo the criticism of the vale of tears, the halo of which is religion.”
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
Redstar, Karl Marx writes in the Communist Manifesto that the proletariat class are the modern physical-laboring class working in factories instead of guild-shops or farms. Karl Marx writes that the value of the labor of the proletariat is calculated by the value of the commodity produced by the labor. Thus, doctors, lawyers, teachers, and landless peasants are not proletarians. Am I right?
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
Sorry, I thought you were asking for my opinion. Yes, Marx did say in the ‘Communist Manifesto’ that the proletariat were those in society that physically manufactured things. In modern terms, by your interpretation of Marx’s work, only those working in secondary industry would be classed as the proletariat. This would imply that miners, foresters, nurses, plumbers, shelf stackers, etc. should not be part of the proletariat and therefore the dictatorship of the proletariat.
You must remember the time in which the ‘Manifesto’ was written and the young age of Marx at the time of writing it. Also it was not purely Marx’s work and was contributed to by many radicals at the time. For true Marxist thought look at the ‘German Ideology’ (ok, written before the ‘Manifesto’ but pertains to philosophy rather than radical social uprising) and ‘Capital’.
Marxism is a social science and can be changed and modified with the times, this is why Marxism is not a religion as many functionalists and other right-wing philosophies would claim, because Marx’s word is not sacred but modifiable.
There are two classes in society today, those who own the means of production (Bourgeoisie), and those who are slaves to the means of production (Proletariat). Doctors, lawyers and teachers are, under this modern interpretation, the proletariat because they are slaves to the production system. Doctors maintain the workforce’s health; lawyers protect the bourgeoisie or help the workforce believe they have made small gains against there employers and teachers train the workforce. They believe that they are part of the fictional ‘middle-class’ but this is not true, there false class consciousness masks there true identity from themselve and others in society.
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
So according to you're opinion lawyers, teachers, doctors, and civil engineers are part of the proletariat. So if the bourgeoisie are over-thrown and a dictatorship of the proletariat is installed, then the new class-division of society would be between mental-labor and physical-labor or in other words white-collar and blue-collar. So the new oppressors would be the teachers, doctors, and lawyers. However, they would have a very useful historical purpose in educating the ignorant physical-laboring masses about how to run society without the bourgeoisie and eventually how to run the society without lawyers, doctors, teachers and other mental-laborers by being self-sufficient through having adequate knowledge to act as a doctor, teacher, or lawyer for theirself and others. What do you think of my opinion and or the logic behind my opinion?
In the Communist Manifesto, Karl Marx briefly expresses 10 measures:
"The proletariat will use its political
supremacy to wrest, by degree, all capital
from the bourgeoisie, to centralise all
instruments of production in the hands of the
State, i.e., of the proletariat organised as
the ruling class; and to increase the
total productive forces as rapidly as possible.
Of course, in the beginning, this cannot be
effected except by means of despotic inroads on
the rights of property, and on the conditions
of bourgeois production; by means of measures,
therefore, which appear economically
insufficient and untenable, but which, in the
course of the movement, outstrip
themselves, necessitate further inroads
upon the old social order, and are unavoidable
as a means of entirely revolutionising the mode
of production.
These measures will, of course, be different
in different countries.
Nevertheless, in most advanced countries,
the following will be pretty generally applicable.
1. Abolition of property in land and application
of all rents of land to public purposes.
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants
and rebels.
5. Centralisation of credit in the banks of
the state, by means of a national bank with
State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6. Centralisation of the means of communication
and transport in the hands of the State.
7. Extension of factories and instruments
of production owned by the State; the bringing
into cultivation of waste-lands, and the
improvement of the soil generally in accordance
with a common plan.
8. Equal liability of all to work. Establishment
of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing
industries; gradual abolition of all the
distinction between town and country by a
more equable distribution of the populace over
the country.
10. Free education for all children in
public schools. Abolition of children’s
factory labour in its present form. Combination
of education with industrial production, &c, &c."
The 9th measure calls for the "gradual abolition of all distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country." The 9th measure sounds understandable and agreeable, but it is too brief and does not give details.
What is the detailed meaning and purpose of the 9th measure?
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
"So, according to your opinion lawyers, teachers, doctors, and civil engineers are part of the proletariat?"
Yes
"So if the bourgeoisie are over-thrown and a dictatorship of the proletariat is installed, then the new class-division of society would be between mental-labour and physical-labour?"
Possibly, but not necessarily. That would fit with the idea of historical dialectics. Many Marxist writers today have talked about this as a possible intermediate epoch between Communism and Capitalism. Any epoch with conflict would eventually be replaced. I’m what you would call a reformist Marxist, more concerned with Marx’s later critiques of capitalism. I’m not too interested in the revolution described in the ‘Manifesto’ because capitalism has not reached its final conclusion yet.
"What is the detailed meaning and purpose of the 9th measure?"
In order for communism to work in the way that is detailed in the ‘Manifesto’ it would require the Earth’s population to be spread evenly over the face of planet in one global city (obviously avoiding the inhospitable). They are required to move because if they were to stay in there original settlements it would become near impossible to redistribute resources equally, ideas of nationalism and borders would still exist and infrastructure would remain exclusive. The problem for ‘revolution now’ Marxists is that the ninth measure would be impossible to implement as the global populace, including the proletariat (your definition), are still blinded by capitalism and would not be happy to leave ‘their’ homes, ‘their’ nations or ‘their’ peoples.
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
"capitalism has not reached its final conclusion yet."
When will capitalism reach its final conclusion?
In the communist manifesto, Karl Marx writes that the proletariat of each nation will have to win the national struggle against the bourgeoisie, before they can unite with other proletariat of other countries, and that each nation has its own conditions and own pace of development of capitalism, however all the countries of the world are in capitalist mode of economy and society, some are just beginning and other are about to end it.
"In order for communism to work in the way that is detailed in the ‘Manifesto’ it would require the Earth’s population to be spread evenly over the face of planet in one global city (obviously avoiding the inhospitable)."
Karl Marx states that this measure should be applicable in each country according to its level of capitalist development for the basis of acomplishing the measures. So there does not need to be a global city under Marxism before this measure can be put into action.
"They are required to move because if they were to stay in there original settlements it would become near impossible to redistribute resources equally, ideas of nationalism and borders would still exist and infrastructure would remain exclusive."
I think the purpose of the measure is to wean the urban population from the parasitic capitalist urban lifestyle of living off exploitation of the laborers of the countryside. And instead make an equable division of labor through the "equable distribution of the populace" over the arable land.
"The problem for ‘revolution now’ Marxists is that the ninth measure would be impossible to implement as the global populace, including the proletariat (your definition), are still blinded by capitalism and would not be happy to leave ‘their’ homes, ‘their’ nations or ‘their’ peoples."
They would leave their homes if the majority of the population resided in the countryside already, and wanted to divide the hard labor of the countryside with their lazy city dwelling "countrymen" to lessen the work per individual by distributing the work tasks on an equable basis.
Here are a few reasons why it is desperately important for the towns people and city dwellers to be disbanded from their population centers by being distributed over the countryside:
- The towns and cities are over-populated
- The towns and cities are the main source of pollution
- The towns and cities are parasitic to their surrounding
- The towns and cities are bases of capitalist power
- The towns and cities were invented by the capitalists
- The populace of the towns and cities are mostly capitalist who immigrated from other countries for an easier exploitive life-style (exploiting the native majority).
- The towns and cities are artificial and can not survive without constant and aggressive capitalist exploitation of the labor of the country people and the foreign people overseas.
- The towns and cities are centers of racial and social unrest due to differences of language and race, because of immigrants that ran away from the poverty or dictatorship in their country instead of fighting the culprits of the poverty and dictatorship, like all the progressive prosperous democratic countries did. Or how Marx put it in the 1st chapter of the Communist Manifesto:
"Though not in substance, yet in form, the struggle of the proletariat with the bourgeoisie is at first a national struggle. The proletariat of each country must, of course, first of all settle matters with its own bourgeoisie."
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
Here are a few more reasons why it is desperately important for the towns people and city dwellers to be disbanded from their population centers by being distributed over the countryside:
- The target of wars of the future in this nuclear age will be cities, such as how the U.S. dropped 2 nuclear bombs on 2 cities of Japan, and not the capital but just 2 random cities, and brought such devestation and panic to the country by killing millions of people in a matter of seconds, and this is what led to Japan signing the armistice ending the war agreeing to never have any army again. Thus, it is important for the communist nation to be prepared for the inevitability of nuclear warfare in the future, by distributing the population equably over the vast uninhabited countryside.
- A few towns and cities have more political power that all the countryside, such as the National capital-city and State capital-cities. This is vulnerable for the political stability of the nation, if these few cities were attacked or if all cities were attacked, then the politicians would be disorganized and loose their "historic temples" (government buildings), around which the capitalists try to profit from visiting lobbyists and politicians from other places.
- If the country farmers united against the towns and cities, by refusing to provide food to the lazy and parasitic townspeople and city dwellers, then the country farmers could achieve their goals of better standard of living through increase of market prices on food products. And also the country farmers can starve the towns and cities into submission to migrate "back" to the countryside to grow their own food to eat through their own sweat and blood rather than paying to buy plentiful food for cheap price, paid with money earned through lazy work as a cashier, office secretary, capitalist, assistant manager, or taxi driver.
- The countryside is so vast and rugged in most countries, that the rural populace can fight forever against the exploitation of the towns and cities, because the countryside has all the food and towns and cities depend on cooperation of "free trade" in order to keep alive these aritificial villages.
- The means of existance of towns and cities reminds one of a colony of parasites, they buy food and water from the countryside using money earned from lazy work and exploitation and in return they give food/water or anything useful in return, only pollution, poverty, and looked at as low-class for being farmers/peasants (producers of the most important thing, which is food) instead of urban parasites (exploitive consumers of food produced by the labor of another class).
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
These are all very good inferences from the somewhat vague ninth measure. More important though is whether you believe that people should be forced to evacuate the major population centres as Pol Pot famously attempted in Cambodia after an immediate revolution.
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
"These are all very good inferences from the somewhat vague ninth measure."
Thank you, but please tell me exactly what you like about each of my inferences from the ninth measure.
"More important though is whether you believe that people should be forced to evacuate the major population centres as Pol Pot famously attempted in Cambodia after an immediate revolution."
Karl Marx is often quoted to have said/wrote "Democracy is the road to Socialism." The main logic behind Democracy is that the majority rules over the minority, instead of the minority ruling over the majority. The bourgeoisie add to their form of Democracy the belief that the minority should not be persecuted simply for their collective status as a minority. Ofcourse the bourgeoisie would add this to their form of Democracy, because without the protection of minorities, the majority, which is always the working-class, would have abolished the bourgeoisie a long time ago, had their been no protection of minorities in the constitution of Bourgeoisie Democracies.
It is out of this Marxist view of the "Dictatorship of the proletariat (majority)" that I agree with the Pol Pot regime's policy of forcing the "major population centres" to evacuate to the countryside where they would work as slaves of the peasants already residing there, and the original peasants already residing in the countryside would be first-class citizens until the newly arrived urbanites assimilate into the peasantry and thus become part of the majority, whom were and are the peasantry of Cambodia. The peasantry greatly out-number the urbanites and suburbanites, and thus are the majority, and in an honest democracy would be improving their political and social status and power.
Some might say that moving the population "back" to the countryside is "backward" but I have made strong points for putting this program into practice in my previous 2 messages. And I am enthusiastic of proving anyone wrong through facts, logic and reason that the towns and cities of the world need to be evacuated and will be evacuated, disbanded and assimilated into the countryside or set asided as museums for future generations to learn of the sophisticated plot of inequality and misery carried out through these citadels of what will eventually be the last exploitive class (the bourgeoisie and their capitalist white-collar supporters and etc.).
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
By the way I forgot to mention, most importantly, that I have researched and argued with others on the reason for the fall of Pol Pot's regime, and have come to the strong conclusion that the reason why this regime collapsed, was because of its aggressive posture to its neighbors. It is against the Communist/Socialist/Marxist/Liberal Ideology to promote military aggression in the form of imperialism and colonialism. Communist countries can not surivive on an aggressive military policy, because the communist system relies on cooperation and self-sufficiency, instead of capitalist imperialism, which requires constant wars, turmoil, and any form of bloodshed to conquer new markets and set up new complacent puppet regimes of tyranny to ensure cheap labor. The communist country's goal is trying to adequately feed, clothe, and shelter all its citizens by appropriating the work to accomplish this. This goal can not be achieved if the communist country's government tries to allocate a major portion of the national wealth for trying to conquer more arable land, such as how the Pol Pot regime tried to conquer a Southern part of Vietnam that had "sugar palm trees", and used to be a part of the old khmer empire.
The communist country will starve collectively if the regime pursues an actively aggressive military stance toward its neighbors. Communism is not an ideology that can be used to conquer new countries in its name, for communism is not a religion like christianity, but a social philosophy promoting peace through all the people sharing power and work collectively instead of dividing power and work.
If one class has the power and another has to do the work, then there will never be peace, neither nationally nor internationally. For all such societies have proven time and again to resort to war in order to conquer new markets instead of cooperating with other countries peacefully, by respecting the right of other country's workers to have adequate pay for their labor instead of "cheap labor".
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
This is a good example of why the ‘Manifesto’ should be interpreted with a pinch of salt because of its fallacious and vague phraseology. I’m going to assume that you come from a rural background in the US. I come from an urban background in the UK. You concluded that the ninth measure justifies moving the urban population, as soon as possible, into a rural setting by force if needs be. I concluded that the ninth measure is the explanation of how slow urban sprawl out into the countryside will eventually make the two indistinguishable and highlights the possible benefits of this sprawl. Our differing interpritations are the result of our differing history. You have also said “lazy and parasitic townspeople and city dwellers” exploit the rural community by taking advantage of free trade. It could be argued that the rural peoples exploit the machinery that the urban people build that makes their jobs easier.
The reality is that neither group are lazy or naturally opposed. This is the way capitalism thrives, divide and conquer, keep the urban and rural people opposed so they remain oblivious to their real oppressors. Always remember that there is a hammer as well as a sickle in our symbol, unified against oppression.
Have you ever read Trotsky?
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
"This is a good example of why the ‘Manifesto’ should be interpreted with a pinch of salt because of its fallacious and vague phraseology."
Please give an examples of a specific "fallacious" phrase in the Communist Manifesto.
"I’m going to assume that you come from a rural background in the US. I come from an urban background in the UK."
Actually I was born and raised in an urban background. I just have a talent of understanding the views of others, even if they are against my existance, as long as they have an absolute truth to them.
"You concluded that the ninth measure justifies moving the urban population, as soon as possible, into a rural setting by force if needs be."
Yes, the same type of force that would be used to move the bourgeoisie away from their capitalist properties private and commercial, and into the laborers' commune.
"I concluded that the ninth measure is the explanation of how slow urban sprawl out into the countryside will eventually make the two indistinguishable and highlights the possible benefits of this sprawl."
But you said that many urbanites would never accept living in the countryside.
"Our differing interpritations are the result of our differing history."
What "differing history".
"You have also said “lazy and parasitic townspeople and city dwellers” exploit the rural community by taking advantage of free trade."
I did not call it free trade in such a context. But please explain what you mean.
I call the townspeople and city dwellers lazy and parasitic, in comparison to the peasantry, the ones without the machinery, using animals and simple tools to help them with their hard physical-labor, which provides food to most of the people of the world. And it is the easy consumption of food when hungry, that distinguishes humans from animals, and allows humans to do sophisticated things. And if the peasantry, whom are the majority in most of the world, stop feeding the townspeople and city dwellers for being parasitic and lazy and being so arrogant that they keep all political and social power in the urban centers not the countryside. The poor in most of the world are not factory workers, but peasants, or former peasants working in sweatshops in Asia.
"It could be argued that the rural peoples exploit the machinery that the urban people build that makes their jobs easier."
That makes no sense, because the urban people are the net beneficiaries of the whole mechanized farming process, because first of all the rustics (rural people) have to buy the extremely expensive machinery (expensive because of the massive profits the urbanites make in selling the machinery), then the materials needed to maintain and provide fuel to the machinery have to be bought from the urbanites, and when the food is finally sold to the urbanites, the greater profit is earned by the urbanites (whole saler, local retailer, and then the urban consumer whom buys the food carefully to make sure they don't eat too much and get fat, because the price of the food is so cheap, thanks to the power of the urban privileged lazy parasities over the hard-working rustics (the producers of the most important product for humanity, food)
"The reality is that neither group are lazy or naturally opposed."
This isn't true, unless you think that the peasant who works all day in the sun watering his field, tilling the land, fertilizing it, and etc., is just as lazy as the urbanite who works an 8 hour job just standing and doing simple work like bagging groceries, putting money in a cash register, or stocking groceries (produced through the most hardest physical-labor). The main reason why there must be a hostility between these 2 groups, even if the land-lords and capitalists are abolished, is that the urban workers do such easy physical-labor and eat food purchased through this easy-labor, while the agrarian workers have to work the hardest and still don't have enough to feed their children adequately.
"This is the way capitalism thrives, divide and conquer, keep the urban and rural people opposed so they remain oblivious to their real oppressors."
Capitalism thrives by ignoring these differences, it is due to this un-equal division of labor that the capitalists don't have to worry about food, the way the former exploiting class did (the feudal-lords). For capitalists, food in itself is not a precious commodity, only when it is prepared in a sophisticated style through certain mizes of recipe, then food gains a high-value.
"Always remember that there is a hammer as well as a sickle in our symbol, unified against oppression."
This is very true, however it is logical that the over-throw of the capitalist will bring new divisions, unless the capitalist invention of cities and towns, is also over-thrown, for towns and cities are only neccessary for capitalism, not for socialism/communism. Cities and towns are population centers attractive for more population migration from the countryside to enjoy the easy labor/ easy earning of the towns and cities under capitalism, but when capitalism is abolished, towns and cities will not serve this purpose, unless the new rulers favor the urban living better than the rural, as is under capitalism.
By the way the country that had its flag as the "hammer and sickle", the Soviet Union, was also the greatest enemy of the rural populace, and all the enemies of the Soviet state in the cities would be sent to the countryside as punishment, because the Soviets wanted to socialize the cities before they socialized the countryside, even though most of their population resided in the countryside. In contrast, China under Mao, wanted to socialize the countryside before socializing the cities. The 2 main Communist countries were divided on this very issue of urban and rural. Lenin and Stalin were in favor of the urban proletariat over the peasantry. Mao was in favor of the peasantry over the urbanites.
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
‘Please give an examples of a specific "fallacious" phrase in the Communist Manifesto.’
The entire document can be perceived as fallacious because it asks the ‘workers of the world’ to revolt immediately against the bourgeoisie class and install a dictatorship of the proletariat. This conflicts with the theory of Marx’s historical dialectics which suggests that through small conflicts and gradual reform the antonymous structure of each epoch are either changed or completely destroyed and we move on to a new epoch with a new antonymous structure. This process continues until we reach an epoch with no conflicting classes, the communist epoch.
“But you said that many urbanites would never accept living in the countryside.”
No, I said they would never accept it if they were forced into the countryside and I didn’t say they would be. I said that the cities and countryside would become indistinguishable, one and the same, a global city over a long period of time.
“What "differing history".”
Sorry, I assumed you hade rural roots. My mistake.
“This isn't true [neither group are lazy], unless you think that the peasant who works all day in the sun watering his field, tilling the land, fertilizing it, and etc., is just as lazy as the urbanite who works an 8 hour job just standing and doing simple work like bagging groceries, putting money in a cash register, or stocking groceries”
Customer assistants (as they’re called this side of the pond) are faced with repetitive menial tasks which alienate them from their true human existence and there relationship with there product. The mental fatigue that results is apparent from the lack of union activity in that sector.
“The country that had its flag as the "hammer and sickle", the Soviet Union, was also the greatest enemy of the rural populace”
The success of the Russian revolution was dependable on the support of the peasantry. Stalin came from a peasant background and became a socialist as a result of the way the peasantry were treated under Tsar Nicholas II. The USSR failed the peasantry and the proletariat; the peasantry were not the enemy of the revolution. Many political groups use the ‘hammer and sickle’ and the ‘red star’.
Have you read any other Marxist works other than the ‘Manifesto?’
What do you think of Trotskyism?
What was the relevance of the second and third questions pertaining to religion in your original post?
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
"The entire document can be perceived as fallacious because it asks the ‘workers of the world’ to revolt immediately against the bourgeoisie class and install a dictatorship of the proletariat. This conflicts with the theory of Marx’s historical dialectics which suggests that through small conflicts and gradual reform the antonymous structure of each epoch are either changed or completely destroyed and we move on to a new epoch with a new antonymous structure. This process continues until we reach an epoch with no conflicting classes, the communist epoch."
I think you misunderstood the Communist Manifesto's deeper meaning, which was that the world is inter-connected through trade, communication, and travel in such a way that the world is much more aware of international affairs and conditions and moods, and thus a revolution is much more easy to succeed. And the workers are oppressed in such a raw "naked" way in capitalism that the workers, are much more prepared for revolution than they were in olden times of mass-superstition and loneliness of communities and nations of the events happening in the communities and nations of the world.
"No, I said they would never accept it if they were forced into the countryside and I didn’t say they would be. I said that the cities and countryside would become indistinguishable, one and the same, a global city over a long period of time."
Please explain the specific attributes of the "glabal city".
"Customer assistants (as they’re called this side of the pond) are faced with repetitive menial tasks which alienate them from their true human existence and there relationship with there product. The mental fatigue that results is apparent from the lack of union activity in that sector."
I agree. But is there any use of these "customer assistants" in the industrial socialist society envisioned by Marx? Such as won't the "customers" be workers themselves and not need assistance in getting anything, unless they are handicapped, do you know what if Marx mentioned of any position for the handicapped in the industrial socialist society?
"The success of the Russian revolution was dependable on the support of the peasantry."
No, according to Russian history, the peasants were noncooperative with Lenin and his bolsheviks, because the peasants were still intrigued by the benefits of capitalism, because they were very recently freed from serfdom prior to the Bolshevik revolution.
"Stalin came from a peasant background and became a socialist as a result of the way the peasantry were treated under Tsar Nicholas II."
Stalin was the worst enemy of the peasants, according to Russian history.
"The USSR failed the peasantry and the proletariat; the peasantry were not the enemy of the revolution."
Yes they were, just read any Russian history book chronicling the Russian peasantry's anti-bolshevik attitude and actions before and after the October Revolution.
I recommend you to read:
Lenin: A New Biography
Dmitri Volkogonov, Harold Shukman (Translator)
Pub. Date: September 1994
"Many political groups use the ‘hammer and sickle’ and the ‘red star’."
But they all copy the original "hammer and sickle" design from the Soviets, and or each other.
"Have you read any other Marxist works other than the ‘Manifesto?’"
The only work of Marx that I have thoroughly read, was the Communist Manifesto, and I often quote from it, because it is readable on the internet for free, and I easily go to the web site and copy useful quotes from this most outstanding of all the works written by Marx. I have read bits of:
- "Das Kapital"
- "Poverty of Philosophy"
- "Origin of the Family, Private Property, and the State"
"What do you think of Trotskyism?"
I am not sure what is Trotskyism, but I think Trotsky would have been a better leader than Stalin, because Lenin wanted Trotsky to be the next leader instead of Stalin.
"What was the relevance of the second and third questions pertaining to religion in your original post?"?
You mean what was the difference between the second and third questions of my original post?
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
“I think you misunderstood the Communist Manifesto's deeper meaning, which was that the world is inter-connected through trade, communication, and travel in such a way that the world is much more aware of international affairs and conditions and moods, and thus a revolution is much more easy to succeed. And the workers are oppressed in such a raw "naked" way in capitalism that the workers, are much more prepared for revolution than they were in olden times of mass-superstition and loneliness of communities and nations of the events happening in the communities and nations of the world.”
‘Mass-superstition’ and ‘loneliness’ still exist today. The Catholic Church is constantly spreading lies to those living in South America and Africa about the dangerous of communism. The ‘mass-superstition’ they have inspired, especially in Africa, has led to the worsening of the HIV/Aids virus. The ‘Protestant work ethic’ still exists today, more than ever in the minds of Brits and Yanks, and gives them false hope and an excusable reason to be oppressed. This global age we are now finding ourselves in is in no way any freer than it has been at any point in the capitalist epoch. People are still faced with the same alienation described by Marx and Engels in the ‘German Ideology’.
“Please explain the specific attributes of the "glabal city".”
The global city is a theoretical city without outskirts or a CBD and is continues around the globe.
“I agree. But is there any use of these "customer assistants" in the industrial socialist society envisioned by Marx?”
There will be no need for cashiers in a communist society because their will be no cash. This does not mean that there needs should be ignored whilst we exist in this society.
“Do you know what if Marx mentioned of any position for the handicapped in the industrial socialist society?”
Marx said “To each according to their labour, from each according to their ability” which basically means that every one should do as much work as they can for the benefit of society and take only what they need from the output of others from society. The disabled (depending on the disability) have low labour output and require greater input from others in society.
“No, according to Russian history, the peasants were noncooperative with Lenin and his bolsheviks, because the peasants were still intrigued by the benefits of capitalism, because they were very recently freed from serfdom prior to the Bolshevik revolution.”
Not many people were co-operative with the Bolsheviks. The Russian Revolution of 1917 was caused by general disgust towards the Romanovs and a lack of food because the peasantry could no longer work. The Bolsheviks had little to do with the revolution especially as most of their leaders were exiled. Lenin was very quick in claiming responsibility for the revolution using propaganda to convince the masses that it was the Bolshevik Party that had orchestrated the events of 1917. The peasants were in no way intrigued by the benefits of capitalism because a feudal system was still in place. Only a very small minority were free from the rule of the aristocracy. The Emancipation of the Serfs came 51 years before the Russian Revolution, and as the average life span of a peasant was around thirty years, the emancipation was hardly in living memory for most. I see the revolution as starting in 1905, with Father Gapon and the events of Bloody Sunday. Every event after this point led to 1917 and the peasantry were important in many of these events.
“Stalin was the worst enemy of the peasants, according to Russian history.”
In the end, there weren’t many people Stalin didn’t consider his enemy.
“Yes they were, just read any Russian history book chronicling the Russian peasantry's anti-bolshevik attitude and actions before and after the October Revolution.”
What about the reaction to the failure of Stolypin’s agricultural reforms and the Peasants Revolts, specifically the 1917 Peasants Revolt.
“But they all copy the original "hammer and sickle" design from the Soviets, and or each other.”
Which is why it has become more of a symbol for communism as opposed to a symbol which solely represents the USSR.
“[the ‘Manifesto’ is the] most outstanding of all the works written by Marx.”
Sorry, but the manifesto was written when Marx was very young, without the moderating influence of Engels and is no more than a pamphlet, written in a simple manner for the illiterate working class of the time. I personally find it the most dismissible of all of Marx’s work. It is in no way in the same league as ‘Capital’ or ‘the German Ideology’.
“What is Trotskyism?”
Trotskyism is a Marxist/Leninist ideology arguing for the establishment of an international communist party based on the philosophy behind the ‘Fourth International’ and advocates a return to the original writings of Marx. It is democratic and is more of a reformist movement than revolutionary one. The Socialist Alternative Party of the United States follows Trotskyism and is part of the CWI.
“You mean what was the difference between the second and third questions of my original post?”
Sorry, I meant why you asked the second and third question. We’ve only discussed the first and I wanted to know where you were going with the other two.
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
"‘Mass-superstition’ and ‘loneliness’ still exist today. The Catholic Church is constantly spreading lies to those living in South America and Africa about the dangerous of communism. The ‘mass-superstition’ they have inspired, especially in Africa, has led to the worsening of the HIV/Aids virus. The ‘Protestant work ethic’ still exists today, more than ever in the minds of Brits and Yanks, and gives them false hope and an excusable reason to be oppressed."
What I meant by mass-superstition in communities of olden times is that in comparison to the communities of today, the people are much more educated, because education used to be a privilege reserved for the wealthiest, now it is a right of citizenship, and nowadays people spend much more time in entertainment rather than in worship, because they find much more sensible comfort in entertainment.
"This global age we are now finding ourselves in is in no way any freer than it has been at any point in the capitalist epoch."
I agree, but people don't make a revolution because they are free to do so, but because they are conscious to do so, that was my point.
“The global city is a theoretical city without outskirts or a CBD and is continues around the globe."
Cities are a modern capitalist creation out of towns, the cities make it easier for capitalism to thrive. A global city, would just be a larger base for capitalism, even if it were run on a communist system of economy, it would easily return to capitalism.
“There will be no need for cashiers in a communist society because their will be no cash."
What will replace cash in a communist society?
"Marx said “To each according to their labour, from each according to their ability” which basically means that every one should do as much work as they can for the benefit of society and take only what they need from the output of others from society. The disabled (depending on the disability) have low labour output and require greater input from others in society."
What do you mean by low labor output? Do you mean that the handicap would have low-labor output due to physical-labor being the only labor?
“The peasants were in no way intrigued by the benefits of capitalism because a feudal system was still in place. Only a very small minority were free from the rule of the aristocracy. The Emancipation of the Serfs came 51 years before the Russian Revolution, and as the average life span of a peasant was around thirty years, the emancipation was hardly in living memory for most. I see the revolution as starting in 1905, with Father Gapon and the events of Bloody Sunday. Every event after this point led to 1917 and the peasantry were important in many of these events."
Even though the Imperial decree of the Czar for the abolition of serfdom was declared, the decree was not acknowledged by many feudal-lords, and very slowly lands of the feudal-lords were freed from serfdom up until the bolshevik revolution, and thus many of the newly freed serfs were allowed to go to the cities and they were intrigued by the ability to profit from the poverty of the cities by exchanging food for clothes and jewelry.
“What about the reaction to the failure of Stolypin’s agricultural reforms and the Peasants Revolts, specifically the 1917 Peasants Revolt."
Please explain what was the reaction to the failur of Stolypin's agricultural reforms, and what were the reforms. And please explain what happend in the peasant revolts.
"Trotskyism is a Marxist/Leninist ideology arguing for the establishment of an international communist party based on the philosophy behind the ‘Fourth International’ and advocates a return to the original writings of Marx. It is democratic and is more of a reformist movement than revolutionary one. The Socialist Alternative Party of the United States follows Trotskyism and is part of the CWI."
Please give an example of the difference between Trotskyism and other forms of communism.
"Sorry, I meant why you asked the second and third question. We’ve only discussed the first and I wanted to know where you were going with the other two."
You already answered my other 2 questions:
"2. What was Marx's view on God?
‘God’ is the way in which the dominant ideology, in any given society, are made to seem objective, sanctified and unchanging.
3. What was Marx's view on religion and "freedom of worship"?
“To abolish religion as the illusory happiness of the people is to demand their real happiness. The demand to give up illusions about the existing state of affairs is the demand to give up a state of affairs which needs illusions. The criticism of religion is therefore in embryo the criticism of the vale of tears, the halo of which is religion.”
I asked these 2 questions, because I wanted to know what was Marx's view on these 2 subjects, through direct quotes from his writings, so that I could defend my views against the belief in God and Religion, using these quotes, when discussing with the God-believing and religious self-proclaimed Marxists.
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
“What I meant by mass-superstition in communities of olden times is that in comparison to the communities of today, the people are much more educated, because education used to be a privilege reserved for the wealthiest, now it is a right of citizenship, and nowadays people spend much more time in entertainment rather than in worship, because they find much more sensible comfort in entertainment.”
It is not a ‘right of citizenship’ for those who live in LEDCs. Those who are educated in society today are educated on how to serve a capitalist system. The more people socialised by a capitalist school system the easier it is for the dominant ideology to be enforced. 60% of all Oxbridge students progressed from public schools and less than 10% come from council estates.
“I agree, but people don't make a revolution because they are free to do so, but because they are conscious to do so, that was my point.”
But people’s consciousnesses are not free. In order for revolution the populace must be free of false class consciousness and other illusions prevalent in capitalism.
“Cities are a modern capitalist creation out of towns, the cities make it easier for capitalism to thrive. A global city, would just be a larger base for capitalism, even if it were run on a communist system of economy, it would easily return to capitalism.”
Cities are capitalist creations, born out of the bourgeois revolutions in many nations and the resulting mass emigration from rural communities to emerging towns. By design they work best in the capitalist epoch. Marx wrote that the technological achievements of the capitalist era will eventually create the infrastructure for a successful communist epoch. The philosophy of historical dialectics relies on the linearism of time and so it is impossible for communism to revert back to capitalism as capitalism can not revert back to feudalism.
“What will replace cash in a communist society?”
Money is used to represent resources ‘owned’ by a person, if all resources were distributed equally based on need and no one possessed anything; there would be no reason for money.
“What do you mean by low labor output? Do you mean that the handicap would have low-labor output due to physical-labor being the only labor?”
No, sorry I didn’t state a specific disability; they may be mentally or physically disabled or both, in varying degrees. These variables would dictate how much extra help these people would need.
“Please explain what was the reaction to the failur of Stolypin's agricultural reforms, and what were the reforms. And please explain what happend in the peasant revolts.”
In October, 1906, Stolypin introduced legislation that enabled peasants to have more opportunity to acquire land. Stolypin's intention was to create a stable group of kulaks who would form a natural conservative political force. People living in rural areas also got more freedom in the selection of their representatives to the zemstvo.
“Please give an example of the difference between Trotskyism and other forms of communism.”
Stalinists believe in socialism existing in one nation. Trotskyites believe this to be impossible.
Stalinists propose that aggravation of the class struggle along with the development of socialism is positive for the communist movement. Trotskyites believe in more libertarian reformist values. (Thou most Trotskyites would dispute the later).
Stalinists are totalitarian. Trotskyites are democratic.
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
"It is not a ‘right of citizenship’ for those who live in LEDCs."
What are "LEDCs".
"Those who are educated in society today are educated on how to serve a capitalist system."
Many people engage in self-education parallel to their public education. And this self-education is responsible for people becoming socialists in a capitalist society. It is easier to become a socialist in a capitalist society than a feudalist society, because in a feudalist society there is no freedom of education nor freedom of speech.
"But people’s consciousnesses are not free. In order for revolution the populace must be free of false class consciousness and other illusions prevalent in capitalism."
The French revolution was an inevitable and necessary bourgeoisie revolution, on the path to an eventual proletariat revolution in the future. And this revolution was conducted without the bourgeoisie or proletariat having "free consciousness" given to them by the rulers, to the contrary, it was the lack of "free consciousness" that led to the grievances that eventually boiled over in the form of the revolution.
"Cities are capitalist creations, born out of the bourgeois revolutions in many nations and the resulting mass emigration from rural communities to emerging towns."
And this will be reversed according to the ninth measure of the Communist Manifesto.
"By design they work best in the capitalist epoch. Marx wrote that the technological achievements of the capitalist era will eventually create the infrastructure for a successful communist epoch."
Yes the cities are necessary for the transition to communism, but they are not an essential component of the communist system.
"The philosophy of historical dialectics relies on the linearism of time and so it is impossible for communism to revert back to capitalism as capitalism can not revert back to feudalism."
Capitalism did revert to feudalism, this occurred in Italy, China, India, Egypt, and many other socieities with thousands of years of history.
"Money is used to represent resources ‘owned’ by a person, if all resources were distributed equally based on need and no one possessed anything; there would be no reason for money."
What I mean was for example what would replace cash to trade for in order to get music/movies or as an incentive for producing music/movies. Or would there be no form of entertainment in the communist society?
“Stalinists believe in socialism existing in one nation. Trotskyites believe this to be impossible.”
Please explain what exactly do you mean by “socialism existing in one nation”. And what specific substitute for this policy do the Trotskyites propose?
“Stalinists propose that aggravation of the class struggle along with the development of socialism is positive for the communist movement.”
How does one conduct “aggravation of the class struggle”? Please give a real-life example.
“Trotskyites believe in more libertarian reformist values. (Thou most Trotskyites would dispute the later).”
Basically Trotskyites are Social Democrats, right?
“Stalinists are totalitarian. Trotskyites are democratic.”
The power of the capitalists can never be taken away from them in a democratic system that is set-up on the bourgeoisie democratic model.
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
“In a feudalist society there is no freedom of education nor freedom of speech.”
Can you really choose what social institutions teach? Surly you, an American, would know that freedom of speech is a myth. You have the USA PATRIOT Act and Hate Crime legislation in place to stop free speech. Free speech exists until the powers that be disagree with what is being said.
“This revolution [French revolution] was conducted without the bourgeoisie or proletariat having "free consciousness" given to them by the rulers, to the contrary, it was the lack of "free consciousness" that led to the grievances that eventually boiled over in the form of the revolution.”
The entrepreneurial guildsmen and merchants, that would later become the bourgeoisie, were free from the belief that the monarchy was selected by ‘God’ to rule over all living things. This free consciousness allowed them to revolt. Without it they still would have accepted their place within the feudal hierarchy as the hierarchy had been designed by ‘God’, the perfect being.
“And this will be reversed according to the ninth measure of the Communist Manifesto”
But you said yourself that the ninth measure was vague. How do you know for sure that the ‘abolition of all the distinction between town and country’ should be carried out in the way you have previously described? Marx uses the term ‘abolish’ rather loosely and with mixed meanings. In his essay ‘On the Jewish Question’ Marx argues against Bruno Bauer’s claims that religion should be abolished in order for man to be free, arguing instead that the secularisation is not opposed to religion, but rather actually presupposed to it.
“Capitalism did revert to feudalism”
Capitalism, under the strictest of Marxist definitions, cannot and never will revert back to feudalism.
“This occurred in Italy, China, India, Egypt, and many other societies”
Could you give me a more specific example?
“What I mean was for example what would replace cash to trade for in order to get music/movies or as an incentive for producing music/movies. Or would there be no form of entertainment in the communist society?”
There would most certainly be entertainment in the Communist epoch. Music would be produced by those who want to produce music. They would produce it for free because they love music. The musician would be fed by the person who loves to cook and dressed by the person who loves to weave. In tern the person who loves farming produces for the cook and weaver.
“Please explain what exactly do you mean by “socialism existing in one nation”. And what specific substitute for this policy do the Trotskyites propose?”
“Socialism existing in one nation” means one nation adopting Communism while other countries remain Capitalist. Trotskyites propose one international revolution by the vanguard party and international socialism.
“How does one conduct “aggravation of the class struggle”?”
One aggravates the class struggle by physically attacking anti-communist groups. Stalin did this to his opponents in the USSR claiming that as socialism reaches its end its conflicts become more acute before socialism becomes communism.
“Basically Trotskyites are Social Democrats, right?”
Social Democrats believe that the capitalist epoch will change inevitably or is unchangeable and so believe that it is their responsibility to ensure that the capitalist epoch is as fair to the working classes as possible. Trotskyites believe in active revolution after establishing an international ‘vanguard’ party in bourgeois democracy. Trotskyites are commonly but wrongly accused of being Social Democrats.
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
1. Is National Liberation of the colonized Indigenous nation, a prerequisite to Socialism? If no, then please explain why.
2. How should the abolition of religion be put into action? Should it be like how the bolsheviks did in the U.S.S.R., which was by expropriating the gold and other materials with monetary value from the places of worship and then burning the relics and shutting down the place of worship and instituting a public education program of teaching darwininism and atheism as the state philosophy?
3. Is Maoism a branch of Marxism or a branch of Communism or both?
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
“1. Is National Liberation of the colonized Indigenous nation, a prerequisite to Socialism? If no, then please explain why.”
Borders are irrelevant in a workers revolt. It doesn’t matter whether you fight back against oppressors of the same nationality or an outside force because everyone in every country is fighting the same evil.
“2. How should the abolition of religion be put into action? Should it be like how the bolsheviks did in the U.S.S.R., which was by expropriating the gold and other materials with monetary value from the places of worship and then burning the relics and shutting down the place of worship and instituting a public education program of teaching darwininism and atheism as the state philosophy?”
It is impossible for organised religion to be physically stopped by any present revolution. Cuba is an example of this. Capitalism will eventually replace religion with complete consumer fetishism and that will become objectionable leading up to future revolts.
‘Communism begins from the outset with atheism; but atheism is at first far from being communism; indeed, that atheism is still mostly an abstraction. The philanthropy of atheism is therefore at first only philosophical, abstract philanthropy, and that of communism is at once real and directly bent on action.’ – Marx
“3. Is Maoism a branch of Marxism or a branch of Communism or both?”
Maoism can be described as Marxist because it is based on Karl Marx’s sociology, however, in practise the philosophy runs contradictory to what Marx wrote. If Maoism is Marxist and Marxism is Communist then Maoism can be defined as Communist. I personally would not define Maoism as Marxist or Communist because it flies in the face of Marx’s positivist work.
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
"Borders are irrelevant in a workers revolt. It doesn’t matter whether you fight back against oppressors of the same nationality or an outside force because everyone in every country is fighting the same evil."
But isn't National liberation of the colonized indigenous nation, a part of the transition from a Feudal society to a Bourgeoisie society, and thus a prerequisite to the Socialist mode of society?
“2. How should the abolition of religion be put into action? Should it be like how the bolsheviks did in the U.S.S.R., which was by expropriating the gold and other materials with monetary value from the places of worship and then burning the relics and shutting down the place of worship and instituting a public education program of teaching darwininism and atheism as the state philosophy?”
"It is impossible for organised religion to be physically stopped by any present revolution. Cuba is an example of this."
What happened in Cuba in regard to the abolition of religion?
"Capitalism will eventually replace religion with complete consumer fetishism and that will become objectionable leading up to future revolts."
Please explain what you mean by this, by giving real examples of any country.
"Maoism can be described as Marxist because it is based on Karl Marx’s sociology, however, in practise the philosophy runs contradictory to what Marx wrote."
How?
"If Maoism is Marxist and Marxism is Communist then Maoism can be defined as Communist."
What I meant was, that either Maoism is Marxist (orthodox communist) or communist (non-marxist).
"I personally would not define Maoism as Marxist or Communist because it flies in the face of Marx’s positivist work."
So you think Maoism is not Communist, because it is not in line with Marxism? How is Maoism not Marxism?
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
“But isn't National liberation of the colonized indigenous nation, a part of the transition from a Feudal society to a Bourgeoisie society, and thus a prerequisite to the Socialist mode of society?”
No, why would it be?
“What happened in Cuba in regard to the abolition of religion?”
Cuba adopted state atheism after their revolution. Despite what the Castro regime claims Roman Catholicism is still the most powerful philosophical/theological force in the country pushing communism into second.
“Please explain what you mean by this [consumer fetishism], by giving real examples of any country.”
“the existence of the things qua commodities, and the value-relation between the products of labour which stamps them as commodities, have absolutely no connection with their physical properties and with the material relations arising therefrom. There it is a definite social relation between men, that assumes, in their eyes, the fantastic form of a relation between things. ... This I call the Fetishism ... of commodities.” – Marx
In the final days (decades) of capitalism, more and more religion (in the traditional sense) will be replaced with the ‘worship’ of materialism and the product of the capitalist system. We can see this happening in society today as churches are steadily removed as the centre of our communities. They’re loosing some of their functions to big business, for example, there was once a time when the church would be relied on as the outlet for a communities charitable conscience, now we see businesses such as Nike, McDonald’s and Wal-Mart ‘sponsoring’ charitable events. Since fewer and fewer people attend church the churches loose their ability to perform this function, thus forcing them to become more and more obsolete. The church reacts my becoming more extreme and critical of their society because they no longer fit in capitalisms long term plan. A good example of this is the evangelical movement. It is no coincidence that the evangelical movement is strongest in the US, the home of capitalism.
“How is Maoism not Marxism?”
Maoism advocates peasant revolt as a means to give ‘the party’ (a select few) the power to control an entire nation. Basically they believe in exploiting the peasant’s situation in order to gain control for themselves. Marxism is about freedom exploitation and this is why they are contradictory.
“Maoism is Marxist (orthodox communist) or communist (non-marxist).”
By the above definitions, Maoism is by no stretch Marxist. The Chinese Communist Party argues that Maoism (although they call it ‘Mao Thinking’) is Marxist-Leninism adapted for an Asiatic history.
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
"“But isn't National liberation of the colonized indigenous nation, a part of the transition from a Feudal society to a Bourgeoisie society, and thus a prerequisite to the Socialist mode of society?”
No, why would it be?"
This makes sense because National liberation of the colonized indigenous nations would release the anti-foreigner nationalist hatered of the masses and allow them to understand that it is not exactly foreigners whom exploit them but the bourgeoisie, whether it be foreign colonizers or National liberation leaders.
You being a British should understand more than others, that colonized indigenous nations do not have the capitalist basis to transition to a socialist society due to feudalists having too much power either directly through property ownership or indirectly through cultural influence. For example British India was not ready for a socialist revolution, because the peoples were too nationalist due to lack of public education, which was denied to them by their indigenous feudal masters, out of fear of loosing power.
Marx states in the Communist Manifesto that the proletariat of each nation will have to settle matters with their own bourgeoisie before achieving an international dictatorship of the proletariat. And Marx clearly states that the sturggle with the bourgeoisie will at first be a National one.
And also Marx points out in the Communist Manifesto that antagonisms among nations will come to an end when antagonisms within nations end, thus marxist revolutions are to be national not international. Russia tried to make an international revolution and was left poor and lonely when the other socialist republics part of the soviet union broke apart due to nationalist hatreds against the Russians for percieved exploitation by the foreigners as the cause of their low standard of living.
“What happened in Cuba in regard to the abolition of religion?”
"Cuba adopted state atheism after their revolution. Despite what the Castro regime claims Roman Catholicism is still the most powerful philosophical/theological force in the country pushing communism into second."
How can you prove this?
"Maoism advocates peasant revolt as a means to give ‘the party’ (a select few) the power to control an entire nation. Basically they believe in exploiting the peasant’s situation in order to gain control for themselves."
That is the view held by most conservative capitalists, however many other people acknowledge that the intent of the Maoists is not to build an eternal dictatorship but to build a society capable of running without a dictatorship, by developing the basis for a socialist society, such as by the capitalistic policies implemented in the past two three decades to build the capitalist infrastructure to be converted to socialism, and this infrastructure is best built out of capitalist schemes rather than socialist ones, because the capitalists would be the profit-makers.
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
“This makes sense because National liberation of the colonized indigenous nations would release the anti-foreigner nationalist hatered of the masses and allow them to understand that it is not exactly foreigners whom exploit them but the bourgeoisie, whether it be foreign colonizers or National liberation leaders.”
As we our no living in an age of globalisation more and more people our becoming aware of their own situation and their own countries relation to others on the world stage. There are not many nations classed as colonies, there are plenty of puppet governments but they are different because the people of those nations are largely oblivious to who their puppeteer is. The Indian revolution could be seen as a bourgeois revolt against a feudalistic system imposed on them.
“How can you prove this [Catholicism is the most powerful ideology in Cuba]?”
Castro invited (allowed) Pope John Paul II to visit Cuba after pressure from the majority of the population. While the pope was there he was allowed to conduct outdoor masses with impressive turn out despite the presence of the Cuban police. The Pope condemned Castro for his despicable human rights abuses and those in the crowd suffered no reprisals after the pope hade left due to fear of a revolt.
“That is the view held by most conservative capitalists, however many other people acknowledge that the intent of the Maoists is not to build an eternal dictatorship but to build a society capable of running without a dictatorship, by developing the basis for a socialist society, such as by the capitalistic policies implemented in the past two three decades to build the capitalist infrastructure to be converted to socialism, and this infrastructure is best built out of capitalist schemes rather than socialist ones, because the capitalists would be the profit-makers.”
And it’s just coincidence that the Party continues to reap the rewards of their capitalist initiative whilst, ironically, the rural community falls further and further into poverty with little running water, electricity or gas. The Party is bleeding its own people dry, don’t make excuses for them.
Marx said in an interview in response to the founding of a Communist Party in France “I assure you sir, I am no Marxist”. You need to fight against those who drag the Marxist idea through the mud as the Chinese government are doing now so that if Marx was alive now he wouldn’t have to make this remark.
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
"As we our no living in an age of globalisation more and more people our becoming aware of their own situation and their own countries relation to others on the world stage."
So you think globalization alone will unite the international working-class? Actually globalization has increased competition among the workers of different nations against each other, and bred hatered. Such as American hatered for Mexicans taking away there jobs. And Americans protesting against out-sourcing of jobs to India.
"There are not many nations classed as colonies, there are plenty of puppet governments but they are different because the people of those nations are largely oblivious to who their puppeteer is."
Who decides whether or not an occupied indigenous people of a land should be classed a colony or not?
"Marx said in an interview in response to the founding of a Communist Party in France “I assure you sir, I am no Marxist”."
What was the implication of his particular response to the founding of a Communist Party in France?
"You need to fight against those who drag the Marxist idea through the mud as the Chinese government are doing now so that if Marx was alive now he wouldn’t have to make this remark."
Please bluntly explain the purpose of his remark.
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
“So you think globalization alone will unite the international working-class?”
No, how have you come to that assumption. You “globalization has increased competition among the workers of different nations” but that is what I mean when I say that people our becoming aware of their own situation, they can see how fragile their jobs are and how little there input is valued by business and government if they can get labour on the cheap. Yes, there is some hatred towards the nationals who have gained these new jobs but the primary focus of most is toward the governments and multinationals. Eventually those who have got these new jobs will realise the fragility of their situation.
“Who decides whether or not an occupied indigenous people of a land should be classed a colony or not?”
The name of the control status over a nation is determined by general consensus in society, its all semantics. A colony is an administered area under the immediate political control of a well established foreign state.
UN list of Non-Self-Governing Territories; Anguilla, Bermuda, British Virgin Islands, Cayman Islands, Falkland Islands, Montserrat, St. Helena, Turks and Caicos Islands, United States Virgin Islands, Gibraltar, American Samoa, Guam, New Caledonia, Pitcairn Islands, Tokelau.
Of the 15 territories 10 are ‘run’ by the UK, 3 by the US, 1 by France and 1 by New Zealand.
“What was the implication of his particular response to the founding of a Communist Party in France?”
I don’t know? The party still went ahead under Paul La Fargues and much to Marx’s dislike they coined the term Marxist and pushed his persona to an almost god-like status.
“Please bluntly explain the purpose of his remark.”
We should return Marxism to the status of a social science instead of letting it be branded a political mode of oppression.
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
“The party still went ahead under Paul La Fargues and much to Marx’s dislike they coined the term Marxist and pushed his persona to an almost god-like status.”
Did Fargues make a mistake in forming a Communist party in France?
“We should return Marxism to the status of a social science instead of letting it be branded a political mode of oppression.”
What is the practical implication of your statement?
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
Lafargue (Marx’s son-in-law) and the Parti Ouvrier Français were extremely successful; in fact Lafargue was the first sociologist ever to win a seat in French parliament. The Parti Ouvrier Français dropped its more revolutionary policies and became more involved in the electoral process. Today the Parti Ouvrier Français’ descendant party, the Parti Socialiste, is the second largest party in French parliament. They helped a lot of working class people and that is never a mistake, though the sectarianism that has developed around Marx’s name is probably not all that positive.
In order for Marxism to be taken seriously as a social science and an intelligent critique of capitalist society (as it was intended), then the association with fascist dictators such as Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot, and Kim Jong-Il must be stopped. Every time a ‘Communist’ or so-called Marxist leaps to the defence of these despotic leaders, it is a hindrance to the reaffirmation of Marxism as an authentic commentary of society’s vices. The effect of the association Marxism now has with state Communism is shown in the ability for people like Mak Make to frequently reference how many people Communism has apparently killed. In order to stop people making such arbitrary comments the association must be stopped.
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
You asked why would National liberation of the colonized indigenous nation, be a prerequisite to socialism.
National Liberation movements are very often supported by foreign communist countries and communist parties. Often National Liberation movements are progressive/leftist. I think the logic for a communist to support a National liberation movement, is that it would lead to a further dismantling of the international monopolies of imperialist capitalism; And thus lead to a reconstitution of the newly independent Nation that would be closer to the transition to a more progressive society. Also national liberation would allow the conditions for the workers of the nation to win the National struggle against their bourgeoisie, which is impossible when under imperialist colonization. When you try to bring communism to a colonized country through overthrowing the imperial government, the different nationalities will have reason to belieive that now there is new exploitation under the guise of Communism, and thus eventually break away, this happend in the U.S.S.R..
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
The fifteen protectorates on the UN list in one of my above posts have no want for independence from their ‘parent’ nation as they rely on them for there economies. Is what you refer to as ‘national liberation’ movements, movements like those in Palestine, Northern Ireland, or Chechnya searching for the creation of their own states? I would still argue that, although it is beneficial, it is not a necessary predicate to revolution, especially not international revolution, as globalization and internationalism pushes conglomerates to the position of chief oppressor rather than other nations.
What school of communism do you class yourself as?
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
So you are neither Marxist nor communist, but a Marx influenced thinker. Your theory relies too heavily on state control and forced action to be considered communist. Although your five stages seem inspired by historical materialism and dialectics, you have no economic evidence and you make too many assumptions to be considered a positivistic Marxist.
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
I am copying and pasting from the original message which should have been a reply to your message on this message discussion:
"The fifteen protectorates on the UN list in one of my above posts have no want for independence from their ‘parent’ nation as they rely on them for there economies. Is what you refer to as ‘national liberation’ movements, movements like those in Palestine, Northern Ireland, or Chechnya searching for the creation of their own states? I would still argue that, although it is beneficial, it is not a necessary predicate to revolution, especially not international revolution, as globalization and internationalism pushes conglomerates to the position of chief oppressor rather than other nations."
By conglomerate, do you mean like the British East India company? The Indian people did boycott products of the British East India company, but they did not become class-conscious about it. The independence of India was a National independence as well as a transition to a more progressive society, such as the feudal land-lords (in the socio-economic sector) and monarchs (in the political sector) of the different states in India were abolished and replaced with bourgeoisie (in the socio-economic sector) and democratically elected leaders (in the political sector). However India remains a Union of occupied nations, occupied by the native Hindi-speaking states of India. There are many National liberation movements in India, there are also many different communist parties, however they all can not unite, due to the perceptions of persecution by othere nationalities within India. The break-up of the Soviet Union into different Nationalist republics was an inevitable outcome, because those Nation's people were occupied before the bolshevik revolution, and after the revolution they were not allowed autonomy or any taste of freedom from Moscow, instead they were heavily exploited and Soviet politics were dominated by mostly ethnic Russians.
What school of communism do you class yourself as?
I beleive in some but not all of the logic and or practices of:
- Mao: The countryside as the base of Communism, and the cities being the base of Capitalism. And thus seizing the cities, through surrounding them through use of the peasants of the countryside.
- Pol Pot: Expulsion of foreign peoples, abolition of mechanized labor and instead embracing the more self-sufficient labor which is manual labor, such as building of lakes with simple tools rather than expensive and pollutant tractors, and farming without the use of chemicals. Evacuating the town and city populace and distributing them over the countryside to bring them closer to the only essential part of the economy, which is Agriculture, so that all the people are fed adequately and no one is without a job.
- Mossaddegh: Nationalizing the foreign owned businesses, such as the Oil Industry.
- Robert Mugabe: Seizing the lands of the foreigners and giving it to the indigenous people.
- Ho Chi Minh: Liberating and Uniting all the historical lands of the Indigenous Nation.
I think there are 5 stages to a completely egalitarian society that relies on only the labor of its own people, and all the people labor equally:
1. National Liberation - the Nation rids itself of foreign colonization or it gives up its foreign colonies, or in short the Nation rids itself of foreign-influence, internal and external. This stage of society is run by feudal lords and or former feudal lords.
2. Democratic Struggle - the majority of the people rule the government and through the majority rule, they gradually overthrow feudalism and abolish all social aspects of feudalism. This stage of society is run by the bourgeoisie.
3. Socialist Stage - the people overthrow the bourgeoisie democratically and achieve socialism, and experience socialism through materialist understanding of reality that it is the social and economic conditions of man which are the sole factors for the existance of man. And all the people are educated and to run the economy and society without the bourgeoisie and eventually without any ruling-class guiding the socialist transition, which is when the transition will be complete. This stage of society is run by the mental-laborers.
4. Communism - the people overthrow the mental-laborers and the society is divided into urban and rural proletariat. And the society is at the most closest to being fully egalitarian than ever, however the division of urban labor and rural labor divides the society into the final class-antagonism: the the minority urbanite proletariat and the majority whom are rustic proletariat. The lifestyle of the urban minority heavily rests upon reliance on foreign countries, and a lot of the gross domestic product and labor goes toward trade with the foreign countries to support the essential industrial lifestyle of the urbanites.
5. Autarky - The majority of whom are agrarian rustics overthrow the urbanite minority, and finally end all reliance on foreign raw materials to support industry, and abolish industry and the towns and cities and bring the urban and suburban populace to the countryside to make Autarky and total and complete equality. Through industry the urbanites polluted the air, land, and water, which are essential for the production of healthy food in the countryside. Also the urban/suburban industry is unneccessary, because the essential sector of economy is in the countryside, through which the food, clothing, and shelter of the people are produced. When all of the nations embrace autarky through the gradual over-throw of each class in each stage of society, then all class-antagonisms and national-antagonisms will cease to exist, and thus society would reach the most egalitarian, self-sufficient, un-exploitive, and environmentally friendly society.
By the way don't get me wrong, I support the build up of urbanization and industrialization as a natural part of a society competing with other socieities, but I think the world will go through the 5 stages I described above, more or less at the same time and thus be complimentary on an exemplary basis to one another in going through each of those stages.
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
"So you are neither Marxist nor communist, but a Marx influenced thinker."
I think I did not contradict Marx's view on the trend of human society, but just added to it, without taking anything out.
"Your theory relies too heavily on state control and forced action to be considered communist."
I agree it relies on state control, but it is democratic, and therefore there is no forced action.
"Although your five stages seem inspired by historical materialism and dialectics, you have no economic evidence and you make too many assumptions to be considered a positivistic Marxist."
Thank you for acknowledging that the five stages are "inspired by historical materialism and dialectics". What are the "too many assumptions" that I make? What is a positivistic Marxist?
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
• You give no reason as to why the one stage would become the next you just assume it will
• You assume that during ‘Democratic struggle’ the bourgeoisie will be overthrown and everyone will adopt socialism in consensus.
• You assume the ‘all the people are educated’.
• You assume that when the people “overthrow the mental-labourers” then society will be “divided into urban and rural proletariat”.
• You assume that you could “bring the urban and suburban populace to the countryside to make Autarky and total and complete equality” even though there would still be those who are their freely and those who are not.
• All your five stages are assumed, unlike Marx’s, which are best on extensive socio-historical research and advanced economics.
The biggest problem I have is with your theory is with the fourth stage you call ‘Communism’. In communism there are no classes or governments and the means of production are an equally shared responsibility. In your ‘Communism’ there is still class divide between the urbanites and the agriculturalists, you imply that there are still ‘foreign’ countries supplying the ‘Communist’ nation which implies the existence of governments governing those nations, and you also reveal in the next stage that the products of labour during that era are not evenly distributed. To call this stage ‘Communist’ is a fallacy. Also the fact that you call the fifth stage ‘Autarky’ implies that there is an outside world to separate ones self from. This runs contradictory to Marxist thought as Marx claimed that communism would be the final epoch and it would be international by definition. Before you call yourself ‘Original Marxist’ I would seriously consider reading more widely into the subject of Marxism and communism and perhaps read more writings actually by Marx other than the ‘Manifesto’. I’m not trying to attack you I’m just saying what I think you ought to do before forming and attempting to defend a theory that appears to be oxymoronic.
What is a positivistic Marxist?
By definition any true Marxist is a positivist because all of Marx’s sociology is based on positivism as the principle approach.
“Positivism is the view that serious scientific inquiry should not search for ultimate causes deriving from some outside source but must confine itself to the study of relations existing between facts which are directly accessible to observation.” – Edmund Leach
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
"You give no reason as to why the one stage would become the next you just assume it will"
It is widely acknowledged by many historians and political scientists that:
• The trend of the world is against imperialism and colonialism in favor of nation-states.
• Capitalism and Democracy will inevitably replace the feudal monarchies and military dictatorships of the world.
Capitalist Democracy, or in other words Bourgeoisie Democracy will eventually transition to Socialist Democracy, for Marx predicted Socialism would first come to the Democratic countries, because "democracy is the road to socialism".
Socialism according to even your definition is the ruling of the working-class over itself, and of course the educated class of workers: teachers and doctors would be on the front line in developing the new socialist society. I have noticed that it is teachers and doctors whom usually are the socialists that bring socialist change to countries. In socialism, education would be free and health care would be free, so the teachers and doctors would have much greater importance than in capitalism, and thus become the educated elite (the new ruling-class), however this new ruling-class would exist on the basis of educating and developing the society and helping the society rather than nakedly exploiting the society and keeping the masses poor, as the bourgeoisie did.
"You assume that during ‘Democratic struggle’ the bourgeoisie will be overthrown and everyone will adopt socialism in consensus."
You have quoted Marx on this forum as saying that "democracy is the road to socialism".
"You assume the ‘all the people are educated’."
They would be under socialism, wouldn't they?
"You assume that when the people “overthrow the mental-labourers” then society will be “divided into urban and rural proletariat”."
At first it might not seem like it, but that is how it is, because the abolition of distinction of town and country according to the ninth measure of the Communist Manifesto would mean that labor is divided into city (urban) and country (rural). And ofcourse there is inequality in the labor of the countryside and the labor of the city, for the labor of the city is the cause of mass-migration from the countryside to the cities, this is a phenomena that has occurred and is occurring all around the world. And the country laborers in a totally educated materialist society of communism would logically realize that the existance of the cities is parasitic and useless, because in that epoch of human society, there would be no need for industry, because there would be no more capitalism or war. Another reason for the ablition of industry and cities would be that they require trade with foreign countries, which wouldinevitably lead to the continuation of the imbalance of trade or risk of mass-exploitation.
"You assume that you could “bring the urban and suburban populace to the countryside to make Autarky and total and complete equality” even though there would still be those who are their freely and those who are not."
The suburban populace would be abolished through the abolition of the distinction of town and country through an equable basis of the town populace over the country. The country peoples would refuse to feed the urbanites, because the urbanites would be living in their ivory towers trying to maintain an artificial parasitic existance.
"All your five stages are assumed, unlike Marx’s, which are best on extensive socio-historical research and advanced economics."
Marxist theory is best to us and a minority of others, but most people in the world would agree that the world should be democratic and will be and even many the anti-marxists agree that capitalism should be replaced by socialist measures such as, free lower and higher education which would eventually lead to the transition from socialism to communism.
"The biggest problem I have is with your theory is with the fourth stage you call ‘Communism’. In communism there are no classes or governments and the means of production are an equally shared responsibility."
Yes, but that wouldn't mean that the urbanite would work in the city and the countryside, but only the city, or be transferred to the countryside to work on the land. I didn't say there would be a state (central government), but there would be a collective government, without any of the attributes of the bureaucratic state governments of today.
"In your ‘Communism’ there is still class divide between the urbanites and the agriculturalists, you imply that there are still ‘foreign’ countries supplying the ‘Communist’ nation which implies the existence of governments governing those nations, and you also reveal in the next stage that the products of labour during that era are not evenly distributed. To call this stage ‘Communist’ is a fallacy."
The world has always been divided into tribes, nations, or races. If the world were to be communist, the countries would not give up their borders and allow other peoples to rule them or share the resources together with the rest of the communist world, but there would be trade between the countries on the basis of international trade cooperation of the proletariat. If you think all the countries of the world will loos their governments and all the peoples of the world will live in one world communist country with no borders, then you are utopian, because Marx never entertained such a utopian thought. Even from a logical perspective, the different races, nations, and tribes of the world can't mix freely and live in a racially mixed society, because from the beginning of human history, even before class-divisions of society, races/tribes were classless in themselves but conquered others to use them as slaves, and this scenario would return if the world were to be one communist country with no borders or government.
"Also the fact that you call the fifth stage ‘Autarky’ implies that there is an outside world to separate ones self from."
The purpose of autarky is to kill all international exploitation by killing international trade, imports and exports. This way nations would have no need to need to go to war or have any further divisions within society, and at the same time this would get rid of the source of global warming and pollution which is devestation to agriculture and society.
"This runs contradictory to Marxist thought as Marx claimed that communism would be the final epoch and it would be international by definition."
Yes communism would be the final epoch, but my point is that industry would be abolished in this epoch, because there is no need for industry if the world is entirely communist and the cultural basis for international explotiation is abolished.
"Before you call yourself ‘Original Marxist’ I would seriously consider reading more widely into the subject of Marxism and communism and perhaps read more writings actually by Marx other than the ‘Manifesto’."
I use the pseudonym Original Marxist because I try to differentiate from those that twist Marx's ideas to be seen as anarchist or utopian.
"I’m not trying to attack you I’m just saying what I think you ought to do before forming and attempting to defend a theory that appears to be oxymoronic."
After the explanations I made now, do you think the theory is still oxymoronic?
"By definition any true Marxist is a positivist because all of Marx’s sociology is based on positivism as the principle approach.
“Positivism is the view that serious scientific inquiry should not search for ultimate causes deriving from some outside source but must confine itself to the study of relations existing between facts which are directly accessible to observation.” – Edmund Leach"
How or which part of the five stage theory is non-positivist?
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
A very heated debate. I have to go on Redstars' side. I. myself, am a Marxist-Leninist. I consider a vanguard party as necessary for the revolution. However, Maoism, the idea of peasants being the class that would overthrow the Capitalist class is simply ridiculous. I normally put peasants and workers together as both being the proletariat. However, nowadays the workers form the majority of the population, rather than the peasants. As Marx well said, the true revolutionary class is the working class.
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
“After the explanations I made now, do you think the theory is still oxymoronic?”
Yes, because you still change the definition of communism. Also communism as an epoch by definition is international, if that is what you consider utopian then you can call it utopian. Communism is also by definition stateless society; if you class that as anarchic then that is what you can call it.
“How or which part of the five stage theory is non-positivist?”
There is no stated methodology that has allowed you to make your ‘five stage theory’, unless of course you can cite for me where you ascertained your evidence.
Thanks for the support Herman.
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
Lenin's application of Marxism to Russia failed, for even Marx predicted that Russia would be among the last to become communist due to its late development of industrialism in a vast peasant nation.
"I consider a vanguard party as necessary for the revolution."
I do to, because this is what Marx calls for in the Communist Manifesto.
"However, Maoism, the idea of peasants being the class that would overthrow the Capitalist class is simply ridiculous."
Maoism makes sense, because in China the vast-majority of the laborers were peasants, and the workers were too influenced by foreignism to be the leaders of the peasantry, whom were the vast majority. China was very undeveloped industrially, during Mao's rise to power. Capitalism had not fully developed in China, for the feudal system was still rampant in the Chinese countryside, and had very recently been "castrated", through the over-throw of the monarchy and establishment of the republic. Maoism has brought China out of a feudal society into a capitalist society. Maoism has greatly developed China's industrial base through engaging in capitalism, which is the basis for the transition from the feudal society to the socialist society.
"I normally put peasants and workers together as both being the proletariat."
Peasants are farm laborers that work their own land or the land-lords land for subsistence, through use of hand-tools and "back-breaking physical-labo"r. Proletariat are industrial-laborers that work for the industrial capitalist, through industrial means.
"However, nowadays the workers form the majority of the population, rather than the peasants."
This is not true for many third world countries. However your statement is true for the developed industrial nations. Marx said that communism would come to the industrial countries first, because of their industrial capitalist base.
"As Marx well said, the true revolutionary class is the working class."
He said that in comparison to the bourgeoisie being the revolutionary class in over-throwing the feudal monarchies, like in France. The bourgeoisie are a necessary revolutionary class that will precede the proletariat deictatorship, for it is through bourgeoisie devolpment of industrialism that will lead to the industrial proletariat becoming a powerful international class.
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
Definition is all about perspective. If a doctor owns his own practise, then he is a member of the bourgeoisie. As I am from the UK, were the majority of doctors work for the state, for a fraction of what they could be earning for a private health organization, I consider them largely to be members of the proletariat as they are forced into a position were they must sell there labour power. There particular labour power is unique and specialised and so is worth more, therefore in a capitalist society they can sell it for a higher price thus achieving a better standard of living than most other people. This doesn’t necessarily make them bourgeois.
The same can be said for lawyers. Few own their own firms, many work for them or work as ‘provided’ representation, and so their for have someone to answer to even though many of them command a great deal of wealth (in my opinion undeserved in comparison to doctors).
However, because these particular breed of ‘proletariat’ do very well from society they are more likely to defend it against change. For this reason it is possible to put them into a sub category of the proletariat known commonly as the middle class.
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
"Definition is all about perspective. If a doctor owns his own practise, then he is a member of the bourgeoisie. As I am from the UK, were the majority of doctors work for the state, for a fraction of what they could be earning for a private health organization, I consider them largely to be members of the proletariat as they are forced into a position were they must sell there labour power."
I still would not consider them to be the proletariat as many of them also buy the labour power of others. Perhaps they may be described as petite bourgeoisie.
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
"Yes, because you still change the definition of communism."
I agree with the definition of communism that it is a classless society of self-rule of the workers, however I disagree that the workers will use industrial internationalism after the international working-class achieves communism, for there would no longer be a need for industry, for there would no longer be any capitalism: laissez-faire or state-capitalism. And that is why the people would evacuate the towns and cities and settle in the countryside.
"Also communism as an epoch by definition is international, if that is what you consider utopian then you can call it utopian."
I think it is utopian to believe that the workers of the world will unite and establish a class-less society in one international revolution, instead I think it is more realistic for the workers of each nation to achieve revolution in their own nation until international capitalism is replaced by international socialism. This is what Marx called for in the communist manifesto, that each nation's workers would first win the national struggle and establish a revolutionary society that is progressive, which is described in the 10 measures of the communist manifesto.
"Communism is also by definition stateless society; if you class that as anarchic then that is what you can call it."
I think it is anarchic to believe you can go from a capitalist society to a stateless society, for Marx said that the machinery of the state should be used by the workers against itself and the bourgeoisie system, such as through state-enforced measures that would replace the capitalist mode of society with a socialist one, through implementation of the 10 measures described in the Communist Manifesto.
"There is no stated methodology that has allowed you to make your ‘five stage theory’, unless of course you can cite for me where you ascertained your evidence."
On another message board on this forum you said that positivism is like making a statement on the basis that x happend under y conditions and x is happening now so y will happen again. In the same way National liberation will occur before democracy can work, because this is what happend in India. Democracy will lead to Socialism, because this is what is happening in Sweden. Socialism will lead to Communism, because this is part of the Marxist theory. Communism will lead to an international abolition of industry to save the environment and ensure employment to all, because the purpose of industry is to help the rise of the bourgeoisie and the rise of the proletariat at the same time, and then industry is used against the bourgeoisie, through instituting a socialist industrial society, however industry in itself creates excess waste, massive pollution, and also according to Marx it takes away jobs.
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
"I agree with the definition of communism that it is a classless society of self-rule of the workers, however I disagree that the workers will use industrial internationalism after the international working-class achieves communism, for there would no longer be a need for industry, for there would no longer be any capitalism: laissez-faire or state-capitalism. And that is why the people would evacuate the towns and cities and settle in the countryside."
Your a Primitivist arent you.
I think it is utopian to believe that the workers of the world will unite and establish a class-less society in one international revolution, instead I think it is more realistic for the workers of each nation to achieve revolution in their own nation until international capitalism is replaced by international socialism. This is what Marx called for in the communist manifesto, that each nation's workers would first win the national struggle and establish a revolutionary society that is progressive, which is described in the 10 measures of the communist manifesto.
So since you dont accept "Internatioal permanent revolution" to be a valid theory does that mean you have accepted the failed stalinst theory of "revolution in one country".
"I think it is anarchic to believe you can go from a capitalist society to a stateless society, for Marx said that the machinery of the state should be used by the workers against itself and the bourgeoisie system, such as through state-enforced measures that would replace the capitalist mode of society with a socialist one, through implementation of the 10 measures described in the Communist Manifesto."
I would agree that a socialist stage has to come before full decentralization.
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
Yes, I am a staunch primitivist, because the "modern world" has caused misery to the workers and their environment. The "modern world" has caused misery to the workers by replacing workers with machines in many fields of labor, causing massive un-employment, and at the same time these machines cause massive pollution to the environment, polluting the air, water, and soil vital in the production of food. The "modern world" will be conquered by the workers, as predicted by Marx and the logic of morality and the trend of history. And then the workers will abolish the machinery that benefits the capitalists and gave birth to the "modern workers" (proletariat), in order to save Agriculture and future rebirth of capitalism, if the "workers state" fails, as in the lesson learned from the rise and fall of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.
"So since you dont accept "Internatioal permanent revolution" to be a valid theory does that mean you have accepted the failed stalinst theory of "revolution in one country"."
I believe that the workers of each Nation will first have to settle matters with their own borgeoisie, as Marx said in the Communist Manifesto. And that through this the imperialist culture of the world will be brought to an end, as more and more nations have workers revolutions without outside propaganda or influence, so as to give them legitimacy in being truly popular revolutions achieved through the workers of the nation rather than through foreign interests and support, which might cause the workers to split into anti-foreigner and cause some workers to be counter-recolution out of percieving that the revolution will benefit foreigners and not the national people, because foreigners have a hand in it. By the way I don't admire stalinism and the theory of "revolution in one country" modeled on the U.S.S.R., because first of all U.S.S.R. was one big empire like China, and that is why it can never be truly communist, because the different nationalities in the country will want their own nation first, so as to ensure that they are not being exploited and are treated equally as part of the world of nations.
"I would agree that a socialist stage has to come before full decentralization."
Of course, because Marx stated in the Communist Manifesto that the tools of the state that the bourgeoisie invented to oppress and control the workers, will be turned against them in the next stage of society, which would be socialism. And once the workers have fully utilized the State to rid the society of all capitalist culture and power and replacing it with workers culture and power through implementing the 10 measures of the Communist manifesto, such as educating them and distributing the city and town populace over the countryside, then the State would "wither away" or as you call it "full decentralization".
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
Current Topic - Questions for hardcore Marxists/Communists